Obama vs. Hilary: Weigh In!

[Luscious]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 12:24pm

I'm for Obama over Hilary and here’s why…

1. First and foremost, I believe he stands a better chance of winning against McCain. (That's almost enough of a reason in and of itself for me.)

2. Given what we knew (or were being fed) at the time, Hilary essentially voted for the war in Iraq. Obama, given the same information, was insightful enough to vote against it from the very beginning.

3. Obama stands a better chance of uniting the country, as well as healing our damaged image and relations worldwide, more so than Hilary. Hilary is far too polarizing a figure.

4. Many people say that Hilary is more experienced and has the better track record. Not concerning universal heath care, she doesn't. She failed miserably during the Clinton administration to reform heath care, which was her main objective. And I much prefer Obama's position on health care reform over Hilary's.

5. Hilary represents the past. I was a big (Bill) Clinton supporter. Still am. But, to me, the Clintons represent the past. Obama represents the future. I'm for moving forward and looking ahead, rather than looking back and trying to recreate the past.

6. I honestly believe that the fastest way out of Iraq (which I'm all for) is with Obama. I have nothing against a woman President, in fact, it's long over due. But while most people seem to believe that a woman is less likely to go to war or to sustain an ill-conceived one, if you look back at women in power throughout history, the exact opposite is actually true. A woman may feel that she has to prove that she has as big a pair of balls as any man, especially during war-time. Hilary will not only have the burden of proving that she's as strong, or stronger, a leader as any man, she also has her husband's legacy to compete with. A woman President in the near future? YES! Absolutely. Just not this woman.

I have other reasons for preferring Obama as the Democratic nominee over Hilary, but I’d like to hear your opinions. Where do you stand, and why? I’m completely open to being swayed. It’s not inconceivable that I’m missing something. I'm entirely willing to consider another point of view. Please share your thoughts!

Updated On: 2/24/08 at 12:24 PM

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 12:27pm

As much of an Obama supporter as I am, I have to disagree with your 6th point. I get what you're saying, but I do think it's unfair to judge her leadership capabilities based upon what women leaders did a LONG time ago. and I mean a LONG time ago. Becaue let's face it, with the exception of a few women, leadership in the form of a woman hasn't happened majorly in a LONG long long time.

[Luscious]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 12:35pm

Point taken, AnnaK. But with all respect, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir was not such a LONG, long, long time ago. At least not to me.

ETA: I realize that it isn't the most valid reason to NOT vote for Hilary. That's why I posted it last. But it is something that has crossed my mind.

Updated On: 2/24/08 at 12:35 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 1:30pm

"2. Given what we knew (or were being fed) at the time, Hilary essentially voted for the war in Iraq. Obama, given the same information, was insightful enough to vote against it from the very beginning."

Obama wasn't in the Senate from the "very beginning" so there's no way of knowing how he would have voted. It's easy to say you're against something, when you don't actually have to step up to the plate and cast your vote for or against it.

"3. Obama stands a better chance of uniting the country, as well as healing our damaged image and relations worldwide, more so than Hilary. Hilary is far too polarizing a figure."

How? Remember George Bush said "I'm a uniter not a divider" That worked out really well didn't it? How is Obama going to unite those who are opposed to any kind of withdrawal from Iraq, or those who are opposed to a National Health Care plan? What in his foreign policy is going to heal the damage?

"4. Many people say that Hilary is more experienced and has the better track record. Not concerning universal heath care, she doesn't. She failed miserably during the Clinton administration to reform heath care, which was her main objective. And I much prefer Obama's position on health care reform over Hilary's."

What exactly is Obama's track record? Failing on health care the first time, doesn't necessarily mean she will fail again. If anything it can be considered a very harsh learning experience, and from that experience the lessons learned can be used to formulate a strategy that would have better results.

"5. Hilary represents the past. I was a big (Bill) Clinton supporter. Still am. But, to me, the Clintons represent the past. Obama represents the future. I'm for moving forward and looking ahead, rather than looking back and trying to recreate the past."

Looking ahead to what? I hear about "CHANGE" but what change? I hear "YES WE CAN" - yes we can what?

"6. I honestly believe that the fastest way out of Iraq (which I'm all for) is with Obama. I have nothing against a woman President, in fact, it's long over due. But while most people seem to believe that a woman is less likely to go to war or to sustain an ill-conceived one, if you look back at women in power throughout history, the exact opposite is actually true. A woman may feel that she has to prove that she has as big a pair of balls as any man, especially during war-time. Hilary will not only have the burden of proving that she's as strong, or stronger, a leader as any man, she also has her husband's legacy to compete with. A woman President in the near future? YES! Absolutely. Just not this woman.

Why wouldn't Obama have the same quandary about proving himself? Proving oneself, isn't exactly tied to gender. The simple fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, has given plenty of fodder to the far right to question where his allegiances really lie. Wouldn't he have to take an aggressive position with Muslim nations to prove that he's not soft on terrorism? I don't see this as strictly a problem for a female president.

Updated On: 2/24/08 at 01:30 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 1:38pm

Why should we bother to share our opinions? it's become equivocable to debating religion. But even more than that, Obamaniacs are starting to become the new Bushies. Zealous and nasty--you are either with us or against us.*

and it's not like you really offered anything new--just the same talking points from the Barack Obamaniac Bib...I mean playbook.

*Last night, my boyfriend and I were waiting for our subway train home. We were standing on the platform having a discussion about yesterday's latest developments between hillary and barack and about how we all have to come together eventually. well, he's less impressed at the moment with obama than I am, so the discussion was about finding out more about him to be able to vote for him, etc etc.

well, being a little drunk, he was speaking a little louder than normal, but not loud enough that our personal conversation was anyone else's business. but, oh no. Obama supporter standing nearby had to chastize us for not getting on board yet.

trust me, I put him in his place for butting in.

it's getting ridiculous out there.

the man is winning, so why are some of you so full of bitterness?

and if she does win this, are you going to be able to practice what you've been preaching and come to support her?

i'm just getting really sick of all this. i'm half thrilled that people are so passionate. but i'm half disgusted by how.

snl had it so right last night.

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:21pm

Good grief! Anybody have a mirror?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:26pm

I know you are but what am I!

I'm rubber and you're glue!

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:42pm

Thank you, JustAGuy. Obama wasn't in the Senate when they voted for Iraq. I'm not sure why Hillary hasn't called him on it. Since he has been in the Senate he has voted for all the funding just like Hillary.
This has gotten so crazy. I'm worried that all the Obama fans will vote for Nader (or not vote), IF Hillary does get the Nom.

BTW - Hillary...it has 2 L's

Updated On: 2/24/08 at 02:42 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:42pm

"Why should we bother to share our opinions? it's become equivocable to debating religion. But even more than that, Obamaniacs are starting to become the new Bushies. Zealous and nasty--you are either with us or against us.*"

" and it's not like you really offered anything new--just the same talking points from the Barack Obamaniac Bib...I mean playbook."

"the man is winning, so why are some of you so full of bitterness?"

I was thinking the same thing, artscallion. Pot, meet Kettle. Sorry you had that unfortunate experience, jrb, but this thread wasn't intended as a "bash Hilary" thread. I thought some of us might actually be interested in, and capable of, the sharing of opinions and exchange of ideas ... even on OSCAR day!!!! And to answer your first question, you needn't bother to share your opinion if you choose not to. And yet, here you are, doing just that.

Updated On: 2/24/08 at 02:42 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:47pm

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:52pm

I like Obama. I like Clinton.

I think Clinton is better prepared to be president today.

I worry about Obama being able to implement the ideas behind the rhetoric he uses - and if elected, he may become the next Jimmy Carter. Or, he may be the most amazing leader the US has seen in my lifetime. I just don't know which, and that worries me.

I don't think it is fair to compare a speech when in State government to a vote while Senator. I really wonder how Obama would have voted if in the Senate. Nobody knows. As already pointed out, it is much easier to say "No" to war, when you are not being asked by the POTUS for the power to allegedly prevent clear and present dangers. We do know that since he came in, his record on Iraq is very similar to Clinton's.

Also, and this must be the attorney in me, but she technically did not vote to go to war in Iraq - she voted to give the President the power to do so. She voted to let the President use force, if necessary, to make sure that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In hindsight, this was a mistake, knowing today what we know, but if you go back to 2002, I wonder whether it was. She, like most Senators, was not given full access to the intel which might have modified her vote (or might not have). But she, unlike most Senators, had a husband who as POTUS also thought that Iraq had WMDs.

I did not support the decision to invade Iraq, but you must recognize that when there is apparently a clear and present danger, Congress would not want to prevent a sitting President from acting, even with force, to prevent another attack against the US. Back in 2002, we did not know the scope of Bush's incompetence, manipulation and arrogance, some of us suspected that he was cooking the intel, but we had no proof. We even had Colin Powell telling us Iraq was a threat. I do not agree with the vote, but I do not fault her for voting the way she did, with the information she had at the time.

The Health Care argument is a red-herring. All it says to me is that Clinton recognized the problem long ago and wanted to try to fix it. She failed, but she tried. That does not diminish from her ability to recognize the problem and try to fix it.

I think both of them would be equally successful at restoring our image internationally. Whether or not he can heal the divides of this nation depends a lot on how the right campaigns, and what kind of mud it throws on him.

I think Clinton has been slimed by the right and media, and all of the bad stuff is already out there.

If the nominee, Barack wll be slimed by the right, and perhaps the media, and I have no idea how people will react to him being taken down a notch or two.

I find SOME Obama supporters bordering on religious devotion to the man, which is a bit scary. I find many Clinton supporters to be more pragmatic and not carried away by rhetoric and emotion.

And, we need to get out or Iraq, but do so in a responsible fashion that does not make things worse than they already are. So, pulling out is important, but doing it in a manner that does not further undermine what little structure and organization exists there now is important.

But, those are just my opinions. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him and hope that he surrounds himself with experienced people who will help him learn as he goes. He may be the most amazing leader of my lifetime. If he is the nominee, and he proves my doubts were not warranted, I will do a happy dance for all to see.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 2:58pm

"... I will do a happy dance for all to see."

Will you post it on YouTube?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 3:04pm

Nope, but I will make sure that someone from BWW is present at the time to witness the event.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 3:07pm

I never denied MY being bitter. you bet I am. at the moment I have no faith that he is the person who should be President at this time.

what I don't understand is why so many Obama followers (some on BWW) are so bitter. He's winning. Shouldn't you be happy?

And welcome to the party/revival. we've been sharing our thoughts for a while now, Lucious.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 3:08pm

those of you who pretend that b. hussein is not the nominee are just sticking your heads in the sand. and don't think that we won't remember who refused to get on board when the great man is in power and we control the apparatus of state. you all will regret your refusal to worship at his alter! repent now and save your souls or b. hussein will have to fix them for you!

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 3:36pm

"what I don't understand is why so many Obama followers (some on BWW) are so bitter. He's winning. Shouldn't you be happy?"

Maybe I'm missing something but I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is bitter? Who is unhappy? You seem to be the only one who is worked up about it all. We're all just having a calm political discussion. Unless, as I said, I've missed these bitter unhappy posts you keep referring to. If so, can you please point them out to me?

I also don't see the delusion, religious fervor and blind devotion people keep referring to. The phenomenon of this accusation is really quite bizarre to me. Why does enthusiasm, for what many intelligent people see as a concrete new hope for our country, scare people?

It's not a cult. We're smart people who know the issues and Obama's stand on them. I'm very politically active and know many Obama supporters. All of them have given serious consideration to their choice. It's all perfectly rational. Just because you don't feel the same way, doesn't mean our feelings are unreasonable or delusional. We just see what we think is the change this country needs and we feel strongly about wanting him to win.

You can vote for anyone you want to vote for. I assume you've gone through a similar process in making your own decision. I just don't see anyone on here attacking Hillary supporters as you indicate. Yet I see an awful lot of the opposite, which is why your posts have me so puzzled. Again, feel free to point out any posts that you feel will help clarify why you are saying these things.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 4:10pm

Okay, weighing in...

Obama --- 165 lbs.
Clinton --- 147 lbs.

He's ahead... but not by much.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 4:21pm

i cannot believe the racist posts this site allows to remain. y'all just hate bam bam 'cuz he's a mulatto.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 4:25pm

No. I'm not doing the searching and the cutting and the pasting for you. I have a hard time believing that you haven't noticed any of the craziness even if you haven't been following the threads here on the subject. and i'm not the only one saying these things so it's hardly something I am concocting. even snl lampooned it all last night.

perhaps THIS thread has been a calm, pleasant discussion aside from my posts. if I have been unfairly carrying my frustration from other discussions and observations (on BWW and in rt) into this thread, I apologize.

but let's not pretend that there's nothing wild going on in the country at the moment. and it's just going to get wilder.

and, I love how i'm 'worked up' and you are merely 'enthusiastic'.

guess what--i'm justifiably enthusiastic, too.

attempting to get back to the thread's original intention, I agree with what has been said by others--it's easy for him to say he was against the war from the start when he didn't have to vote on it. interesting how his votes since being elected haven't matched kucinich's.

I think he's weaker electability-wise than you guys think. I think she's stronger than you think.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 4:29pm

that's because you're a delusional racist, jerby, trying to keep the half-black man down!!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 4:31pm

Is this the weigh-in?

I'm at 184, down from my heaviest at 192.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 4:33pm

blank. you would have to go there.

208.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 5:10pm

Gotcha both beat...a trim 148...I still wear the same pant size I did in high school...neener...neener...neener.

Updated On: 2/24/08 at 05:10 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 5:34pm

papa crush tiny jag!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/24/08 at 5:42pm

"Hilary represents the past."

That argument always irks me. I don't even get it.